I don't know where you're getting your statistics, but crime rates have actually jumped 60% in Sweden, since Sweden banned spanking. Another result, in all countries where spanking is discouraged, has been that far fewer people are having children, which has caused massive immigration into these countries, and attendant INCREASES in violent crime. For instance, Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe, with the large influx of Muslim immigration, which was aimed at making up for the birth rate drop by the native population. Same is true for Britain and Germany: they have seen an increase in violent crime, partially due to the immigration caused by the failure of the native population to have children. In America, juvenile crime rates dropped after abortion became legal, but they are rising again. We still spank, but not as much as we used to. Why does The Economist give it's authors free license to publish blatant lies? At least be honest about the crime statistics.

This article reminds me of a ted talks on oxytocin that argued that if everyone hugged others 8 times a day it would lead to a more moral society due to the natural production of oxytocin in your body that occurs when you hug someone else (oxytocin is the chemical in our body that is responsible for empathy, trust, generousity, etc). If you want to raise your children right you should not only avoid beating them, but you should also hug them on a regular basis.

Personally ... as a grandmother of almost 59, who was spanked aka hit by her parents and who lost her love, trust and respect for them from the first time ... and whose relationship with them was ruined forever - I can say NONE of these 'arguments' for and against make any sense to me ... It's enough for ME to know that hitting ANYONE is wrong, especially children who are smaller and understand less than us - I don't need to know whether crime figures are going up or down. Hitting is wrong. Period.

For all of the "correlation doesn't prove causation" comments, hate to break it to you, but from a preponderance of correlation, causation may be established.

Aside from that, there is the realism that Germany is not the only one experiencing this "phenomenon". Other nations which have banned corporal punishments are experiencing the same dramatic decrease in crime. Guns, video games, and public education funding being inconsistent factors, and less violent upbringings being ONE consistent factor. When you look at nations with the highest acceptance of corporal punishment, you see the highest percentage of incarcerated criminals, active serial killers, violent crime rates, et cetera of any other industrialized nation. U.S. leads the board.

Within any nation, the same can be said. U.S. states with the highest acceptance of corporal punishment and most lenient laws governing its use have the highest crime rates, teen drop out rates, drug addiction rates, suicide rates, poor mental/physical health rates, et cetera. The opposite can be said of the states with the lowest acceptance and strictest laws.

When you hit a child:
1. You create a reactive neurological pathway. As time goes on and the brain continues to develop, that ONE pathway has spawned an interconnected highway of the same thing. These make you more impulsive and aggressive later with every hit.

2. You kill dopamine receptors. These are not just responsible for your mood, the lack there of leaving you angry/sad and impulsive, but also play a role in your executive functionings (the ability to weigh the cause and effect/consequences for your actions being an example). These depressed systems are more likely to engage in alcoholism and narcotics usage to "medicate" themselves and staggeringly increases the chances for addiction.

3. You deprive them of power, both physically and emotionally. The greater they desire power, the more likely they are to take it from others. Bullies, rapists, and serial killers are not born of non violent households.

4. You interfere with the development of the frontal lobe, which controls impulses, the prefrontal cortex (which does too much to name), and either side of your brain responsible for anxiety. You also create floods of fight or flight hormones which can accidentally permafear a child.

5. You kill gray matter, an essential functioning cog in the working clog that is your brain.

Do you think hitting a child will create an intelligent, socially and emotionally matured individual, capable of logically weighing their actions? You take them one step away from this with every "loving" strike.

These are social and physical sciences, amongst others, all coming to the same common sense conclusion.

You'd don't get to just say "Aside from that". You need to show that the preponderance of correlation is not impacted by the preponderance of variety in these two concepts: life and society. Society has changed in dramatic ways over the time periods discussed in the article - even if we're just looking at the timeframe of 1992 to now.

"less violent upbringings being ONE consistent factor."

How do you define a "less violent upbringing"? From a lot of the discussions recently regarding undiagnosed PTSD in WWII veterans we've seen how some people, like Sir Patrick Stewart, come from backgrounds where domestic violence was quite a bit more extreme than the average.

Some anti-corporal punishment zealots would probably think my upbringing was "violent" since my parents used to spank me. Unless you've defined a violent upbringing as one where children witness shootings, beatings with no reason, etc. If you've done that you're comparing apples to oranges. Without actually defining what you mean, I'm not sure if you're talking about "households where spanking is done" equals "violent household" or whether there's some sort of scale that better reflects reality. But lumping those together is obviously absolutely absurd.

"Within any nation, the same can be said. U.S. states with the highest acceptance of corporal punishment and most lenient laws governing its use have the highest crime rates, teen drop out rates, drug addiction rates, suicide rates, poor mental/physical health rates, et cetera. The opposite can be said of the states with the lowest acceptance and strictest laws."

Did you even try to control for household income or teen employment rates?

"Do you think hitting a child will create an intelligent, socially and emotionally matured individual, capable of logically weighing their actions? You take them one step away from this with every "loving" strike."

No. I don't. But where you're talking about hitting a child, are you talking a 4 year old who's just annoying his parents by talking too much -- or a 13 year old who just got caught coming home drunk and high? There likely is an entirely excessive and unnecessary level of corporal punishment done in some homes. What you're saying is that my parents are "abusers" who've damaged me from when I was little when that's absolutely silly. Almost as silly as the things I used to do and get spanked for. Meanwhile, I've turned out pretty freaking amazing.

Without going deeper and, for example, addressing the very real issue of correlation <> causation, you create a class of zealots who completely dismiss the idea that there may be some benefit to corporal discipline. The real "analysis" would be in seeing whether there is any kind of effective application of corporal punishment. Otherwise, I'd correlate Sweden with Blondes and therefore moving to Sweden will make me blond.

Anyway, based on the article there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. However, the implication is that my parents or my Catholic school teachers were somehow abusive when that's farcical. Especially when I see a lot of kids who are completely out of control and their parents don't even care. Further implications are if I were to try to discipline them as my friends' parents would discipline me -- I'd get arrested for assault. So the only other option is to call the authorities and put them in the juvenile justice system where I'm sure they're guaranteed a shining future.

I do get to say "aside from that" because "correlation =/= causation" has become a complete cop out for people who disagree with the facts and statistics in front of them. This is common knowledge that it does. Why don't you show how it doesn't? Show me how these statistics are consistent amongst nations that have banned corporal punishment throughout the decades and explain what happened? What are the inconsistent coincidences you want your fellow sheep to believe?

What do you mean, "How do I define a less violent upbringing"? How does anyone? In Germany you used to be able to beat the tar out of children, now it is illegal altogether to hit them. That was the comparison, obviously.

Never once did I refer to anyone as abusive. Parents who hit their children are misguided; They don't know a better way. Don't put words into another person's mouth, it's inappropriate.

Of course people dismiss the idea that corporal punishment is in any way beneficial, because it's not. We went to college, studied the relevant fields, and you want us to say that there is a benefit? We used to be able to beat children black and blue and people would come out of it saying they were better for it. Assuming we haven't DRASTICALLY evolved in that short time frame, do you think there are benefits to child abuse? No. So despite anecdotes which are embarrassing in an educated debate, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is in anyway a positive installment in child rearing.

We know that spanking damages children. They have different reactions to it, but it is damaging nonetheless.

There is not a single benefit to corporal punishment except the observed temporary compliance, but parenting is not for the parents, it is for the child. College graduates who attended school in the relevant studies and can come to a logical educated decisions are not zealots.

"Some anti-corporal punishment zealots would probably think my upbringing was "violent" since my parents used to spank me." Hitting a child, even premeditated and with a Stepford Wife smile on your face is still an example of violence. And times are less and less violent, in child rearing, and otherwise. People are hitting their children less frequently, less severely, and some refuse to hit them altogether meanwhile the crime rates are dropping.

To say that an adverse childhood experience has negative effects is in no way comparable to saying that moving to Sweden will change your genes. There is not a single effective application of physical assaults against a minor, let alone their private parts.

The good thing is, this paper actually does an excellent job (most of the time) of demonstrating the importance of correlation <> causation. I'd advise reading this week's Briefing on the very relevant topic of falling crime in the developed world. The article points out how many factors correlate with the decline -- yet determining whether any of these factors (fall of communism, post-war demographic shifts, abortion, lead paint usage,...) are causal, and to what degree, requires a much more thorough examination.

"People are hitting their children less frequently, less severely, and some refuse to hit them altogether meanwhile the crime rates are dropping."

Maybe because the kids behave better and there's less need for spankings? Maybe because there are just fewer young people, proportionately, than there were during the 50s?

"physical assaults against a minor, let alone their private parts"

Who ever gets spanked on their genitals? I'd absolutely agree that doing that to a child would be abuse (and to an adult, well,...). The wooden spoon or paddle to the backside is not like a knee to the groin -- but you'd lump them together as "physical assaults"? I have been spanked when I was a little kid but I would never accuse my parents of assault.

"All the while, you disregarded about 70% of my post."

Did you see how long my response was? You need me to address every little point? I'm not about to write a book, particularly when the only things I really took exception with are your dismissive views of proper, thorough examination of statistical evidence, the bizarre idea of equating a wrap on the knuckles or a slap to the butt as "assaults" akin to actual assaults, and the idea that comparisons of post-war America and post 9/11 America to post-war German(ies) and post-Communist Germany would be quite so simple that trends in violence at all be narrowed down to spanking.

"We know that spanking damages children. They have different reactions to it, but it is damaging nonetheless."

Is there an age when the damaging effect diminishes? Basically, how are you defining "children"? 3 or 4? 12 or 13? 17 or 18? I imagine the impact would be exceedingly greater on younger kids -- and spankings would definitely be completely inappropriate on a toddler. I mean little kids don't even know what they're doing. You and this article have done very little to even clarify and define the hypothesis, much less draw causal conclusions.

"Whoever gets hit on their genitals?"
Evidently basic high school anatomy escapes you. The buttocks is a highly sensitive erogenous zone and a locus for sexual nerve endings. The anal region, butt cheeks included, is the major erotic zone during childhood. You do realize that originally it was a pagan FERTILITY ritual, yes? And that the catholic church adopted it and began using it against children for the purpose of sexually traumatizing them? They wanted them to associate stimulation of their private parts, and subsequent arousal, with pain, so as to deter them from premarital sex and masturbation. It still sexually arouses and permanently sexually traumatizes children.

"...akin to actual assaults..." "...but you'd lump them together as physical assaults?" It is literally assault. The legal definition of assault is accompanied by the statement that assault is not deemed unlawful if perpetrated against a minor to correct their behavior. They did assault you. Weapons are illegal where I am, so it does constitute assault, especially the paddle, a lethal weapon, which constitutes sexual battery of a minor. That is abuse.

I gave you causal examples. Physical irrefutable science. It perplexes me that you would ignore it and state that other factors, inconsistent in nations with a drop in violence, must be taken into consideration when they are do not even establish correlation, since they are not present variables in other nations.

Assaults, whether you like to admit that is what it is or not, damage everyone. They are the least damaging upon maturity, or approximately adulthood, which is when it is illegal.

"Maybe because the kids behave better and there is less need for spanking" Now you are confusing cause and effect. Children began behaving better when we stopped hitting them as frequently. If biology is too difficult for you to understand, then do not imagine that children are suddenly developing differently.

Further more, the practice which you condone, is most predominately used against toddlers. 3 year olds are spanked the most according to a number of studies and surveys which have been completed. Of American parents, 30% begin spanking before their child is a year old, 50% at a year old. 2/3rds admit to hitting their children aged 2-5 between 2 and 3 times a week, which averages out at 150+ times per year. The second most commonly accepted frequency is at least once per day. I know too many people who hit their children 3 and 5 times per day, which I didn't learn about until I began this campaign. Beyond that it is once per month over the course of three years with at least 1 weapon. The older children are hit the least.

The most damage is done in the first 5 years, which is when the majority hit their children and the most. Every relevant scientific field has drawn dozens of causal conclusions linked directly to legalized domestic violence. In case you want to refute THAT as well, domestic violence is defined as one household member harming another.

Look who's talking about lack of knowledge of anatomy. Since when is the butt a reproductive organ? If you're definition of "private part" is a sensitive or erotic organ, shoot, might as well add the nape of the neck or seemingly every guy's back. If the buttocks were a private part, I'm sure mooning (or thongs) would be equated with flashing of the penis or vulva -- but it's not. Private parts are clearly the genitals which are the reproductive sex organs.

The reason this bizarre little side argument is so instructive is that it illustrates the importance of definition and context. For example, why I'm trying to prise out of you more specifics about exactly what you mean by "child" (2 is vastly different than 17) and even "spank" (rapping on the knuckles with a ruler vs. open hand on the butt vs. a wooden paddle vs. a kick in the groin -- all of which you seem to think equate to "an assault").

"Further more, the practice which you condone, is most predominately used against toddlers."

If it's used mostly on toddlers, that's clearly inappropriate (as I stated in my earlier post). I condone eating honey but I wouldn't give it to a baby.

"Of American parents, 30% begin spanking before their child is a year old, 50% at a year old. 2/3rds admit to hitting their children aged 2-5 between 2 and 3 times a week, which averages out at 150+ times per year."

"The most damage is done in the first 5 years, which is when the majority hit their children and the most."

As I've stated time and time again in our little discussion, I'd be very interested to see whether there is a point where it becomes effective. Based on my personal experience, it would be an outrage to equate my parents with child abusers. If the use of spanking on me as a child made me more violent, I must have been born the Buddha. I've never been in a fist fight and have jumped in to stop more than my fair share of physical altercations.

"Children began behaving better when we stopped hitting them as frequently."

No, children began behaving better when incomes and education levels rose and their parents could buy them video games and other things to keep them busy.

"It perplexes me that you would ignore it and state that other factors, inconsistent in nations with a drop in violence, must be taken into consideration when they are do not even establish correlation, since they are not present variables in other nations."

Have you even seen the new articles from this week's issue? I'm the one that has the right to be utterly gobsmacked.

You only further verified my point, and this post was entirely your own misunderstandings boasted from the roof tops.

It IS a private part, whether you want to admit it or not. This is not an opinion. Touching your back or neck does not constitute sexual harassment, touching your butt does. Mooning IS indecent exposure.

I do not think it is assault, it is blatantly assault and I know this. It is an offensive contact which apprehends another's physical integrity. The definition of assault, and it is a fact that it is legal assault. What more do I have to spell out for you?

There is NEVER a time when physical assaults are effective. NEVER. Again, spanking is an example of ASSAULT. As is rapping someone's knuckles with a ruler. As is hitting a child with a lethal weapon.

"No, children began behaving when we could buy them video games and other things to keep them busy" Again, correlation/causation is lost on YOU. We have ALWAYS as a civilized society been able to keep them occupied and buy them enticing things. Video games are also not as popular/available in places such as Germany or Norway where their crime rates are dropping more rapidly than in the U.S.

You asked if I have seen recent issues, well no, I have not. What is the relevance? What I offered above are only a handful of actual damages presented in the wake of an ASSAULT that bring one closer to violence. It does not mean that you will be. No one is saying how grand your damages will be and whether or not you will be able to notice them, live with them, or cope with them. It is STILL a huge contributing factor. We know that someone who could not live with the damages of legalized domestic violence would not have had them, had they never been hit.

When asked if you even took the irrefutable scientific evidence into consideration, you AGAIN disregarded it (despite quoting it). These citations are EVERYWHERE. Google "Spanking children" and tell me what you find. Note, do not Google "Spanking", you may not like what comes up, which should be eye opening in itself.

quote - "But where you're talking about hitting a child, are you talking a 4 year old who's just annoying his parents by talking too much -- or a 13 year old who just got caught coming home drunk and high?"
In the latter case it looks like there is already an adversarial situation (perhaps just an undercurrent but all the same) with a long history that has simply progressed to that point. At that stage, the damage is already done. Most of a person's basic character is already done forming at just 16 years of age. By 13 most of the elements are already in place, and largely fixed there permanently. He may learn to comply for a few years but that particular individual will likely have a lifetime of family problems following him to retirement and beyond, whether he ever drives drunk or gets high again or not.
Of course there are parents who don't care and kids who grow up out of control; you'd be surprised how many of these kids get abused too. These are not patient parents who take time with their kids. They let their kids go nuts until they can't tune it out anymore, and then they take it out on the kids (psychologically or physically). Again it's a lack of coping strategies and a general failure in the relationship, with abusive elements arising (both ways) as a result.

Where? HAHAHA!! Mooning is protected free speech! You could have gone through the trouble of actually at least looking it up or trying to Google it. There's even a Wikipedia article about it. And the article further backs up my claim that private parts are only the genitals. Can you make this any more easy? Seems like you're the one boasting from rooftops. If you say it loud enough, it must be true, right? I mean it's even legal for a woman to be bare chested in NYC -- I wouldn't advise it, but it's perfectly fine.

"In 2006, a Maryland state circuit court determined that mooning is a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment as a form of speech.[7][8] The court ruled that indecent exposure relates only to exposure of the genitals, adding that even though mooning was a "disgusting" and "demeaning" act to engage in, and had taken place in the presence of a minor, "If exposure of half of the buttocks constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty."[7]

Defense attorneys had cited a 1983 case of a woman who was arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body. In that case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had ruled that indecent exposure is limited to a person's genitalia. No review of the case by a higher court took place since prosecutors dropped the case after the ruling.

In California, an appellate court found in 2000 that mooning does not constitute indecent exposure (and, therefore, does not subject the defendant to sex offender registration laws) unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was sexually motivated.[9]"

"I do not think it is assault, it is blatantly assault and I know this. It is an offensive contact which apprehends another's physical integrity. The definition of assault, and it is a fact that it is legal assault. What more do I have to spell out for you?"

From your apparent prior misread of what's legal and not -- I'm going to need to require some proof.

"You asked if I have seen recent issues, well no, I have not. What is the relevance?"

Umm... There's kind of a big cover story on it this week and if you can't bother, well... why should I read or lookup anything you suggest? Oh, that's right, you never actually cite anything -- too busy up on the rooftops, I guess.

Look, if you think what you've asserted is "science" you need to go back and redo your coursework. Then you'll see the dangers of misreading correlation as causation. This type of error could potentially lead one to believe

Science is about precision. It's about finding and taking into account all explanatory variables; then based on all evidence creating a hypothesis that can then be tested and tested again.

In this case, I'd expect a scientist to clearly define the age of "child" or "minor" (that's a bit different in some places). I'd expect the type of blow and location to be classified as well as the physical characteristics of the blow such as velocity and whether the child was wearing padding -- like a diaper and pants which would lessen the blow -- and whether the spanking was preceded by any threats or notice of spanking.

And especially, when trying to extrapolate said findings from one society to another, I'd expect said scientist to thoroughly examine the societies, as the Economist has tried to do in this week's issue - which is why I suggested it.

"In the latter case it looks like there is already an adversarial situation (perhaps just an undercurrent but all the same) with a long history that has simply progressed to that point. At that stage, the damage is already done."

Or a good kid who just got his license and goes out with a different group of kids for the first time. Could be a lot of things but that's my point.

"Of course there are parents who don't care and kids who grow up out of control."

Agreed. And there are also parents who aren't even there and thus can't discipline their children. Yet has anyone to now even considered comparing divorce rates or rates of unwed teenage mothers? I'd imagine that could be a large explanatory variable.

Look, if you think what you've asserted is "science" you need to go back and redo your coursework. Then you'll see the dangers of misreading correlation as causation. This type of error could potentially lead one to believe all kinds of racist ideas by comparing crime in white-majority suburbs and minority urban areas and linking differences to race. However, as another of this week's articles explains (the piece on man's so-called genetic predisposition to war) population density could be a factor, itself.

Fun to read your discussion/quarrel here. If video games are even more easily available in the US than in Germany or Norway, children in the US must be born with them implanted on their hands. The opposite is probably true, since the prevalence of child poverty and homelessness is much higher in the US, which most probably reduces access to toys in general and internet connections in particular.

You say I don't cite anything, but all you offered was a Wikipedia page which is laughable at best. That is NOT a source. I went to college, not the biased opinionated Wiki links center. Further, it discusses isolated incidents. The specifics of this mooning may have been politically motivated, as are common on college campuses today. Hence, why streaking (which does expose genitalia) may also not be a punishable offense depending on the state in which you reside.

I did not confuse legality. For example, beating a child with a belt is illegal in Washington. Recently, all charges were dropped against one father for doing so. That does not make it legal.

I provided my website which discusses hundreds of studies regarding the harm that corporal punishment presents. There are nearly a dozen scientific fields which discuss the harm it does.

The butt does constitute a private part and it does constitute sexual harassment to touch it, the latter of which you quoted, but didn't argue. It can, and does, sexually arouse and permanently sexually traumatize children. This is basic knowledge.

These studies have been performed over and over for the past 100 years with the same conclusions after more controls than God have been taken into consideration.

Social sciences are not the only thing taken into consideration. We know the effects of floods of cortisol and adrenaline on the young mind just like we know the effects of a carcinogen on a healthy lung cell, to name an example. These are irrefutable physical sciences, the social aspect offers staggering weight that banning corporal punishment will not turn us into a crime ridden nation, as is popularly believed. I'd be interested to revisit Delaware after a decade and see how they are doing with theirs.

Minor in the United States is defined as a person below the age of majority. Typically, this is younger than 18.

"You say I don't cite anything, but all you offered was a Wikipedia page which is laughable at best. That is NOT a source."

The Wikipedia page isn't half as laughable as your rhetorical nonsense. It has citations, though you probably didn't check any of those out, either.

"I did not confuse legality. For example, beating a child with a belt is illegal in Washington."

We're not talking about beating children with belts, are we? And you're also not talking about banning spanking in Washington -- you're talking about nationally. (Despite the fact you haven't even defined spanking yet. Here you're talking about beatings with belts but I bet your ban will be just as poorly worded and I'll get any case thrown out because you haven't defined it. I'll say it again, are we talking about a wrap on the knuckles?)

"The butt does constitute a private part and it does constitute sexual harassment to touch it, the latter of which you quoted, but didn't argue. It can, and does, sexually arouse and permanently sexually traumatize children. This is basic knowledge."

Football players must have teams of lawyers just to keep themselves from suing each other for sexual harassment.

"Typically, this is younger than 18."

Typically isn't science. Science is about precision. Typically isn't law, either. I can't wait to hear a lawyer say, "Typically I sentence murders to life in prison but today I'm going for death." Can you say "overturned on appeal?"

"So you couldn't Google this one either?
http://law.yourdictionary.com/assault"

Sure. But I'd love to see law in any jurisdiction based on "usually" or "may".

"My old Black's Law Dictionary gives a detailed comparison of legal forms of assault, domestic corporal punishment being one of them."

I'd just like to highlight that bit: "legal FORMS of assault". This is why you and the author need to be precise about what you're talking about. We're about 10 comments into this thread and you finally get around to identifying minors as "typically" younger than 18? No. That doesn't cut it in science because there's clearly a wide difference between a 17 year old and a 17 month old. There's also a clear difference in the effect of the same physical contact. Your definition even included "threats" as assault (well, "usually" anyway).

"Social sciences are not the only thing taken into consideration. We know the effects of floods of cortisol and adrenaline on the young mind just like we know the effects of a carcinogen on a healthy lung cell, to name an example. These are irrefutable physical sciences, the social aspect offers staggering weight that banning corporal punishment will not turn us into a crime ridden nation, as is popularly believed. I'd be interested to revisit Delaware after a decade and see how they are doing with theirs."

Cool. I'm sure there have been actual studies. I'd be interested to see how they defined the "young" mind because I'm sure they did. I'm willing to bet that the studies you'll pick are those where there's the biggest impact -- thus a younger mind (so maybe 2 or 3 years old). Then you'll extrapolate your findings for other "young" people and make your broad policy decision based on that. That's the "logic" behind why we lived with Jim Crow for so long. And that's the bad logic that makes bad laws that get overturned on appeal because the defendant's lawyer picks apart the crappy definitions. "Sir, it wasn't a belt -- it was a switch taken from a tree so it's perfectly legal."

"These studies have been performed over and over for the past 100 years with the same conclusions after more controls than God have been taken into consideration."

Great. Cite some. Not just one, either, because if you want to make a law that bans knuckle slaps, or slaps to the butt -- with an open hand, ruler, paddle, whatever -- you need to have studies that demonstrate how damaging it is to all age groups.

There might be a sweet spot in there where spanking actually is effective. You need to clearly define your null hypothesis (they teach that in the social sciences, too) and work to try to disprove it. So far, you haven't even defined it.

Unlike Teal Rose I never lost my love and respect for my parents because they spanked me. They never did when I was a toddler (that I can remember) and only when I did something bad. Kids do bad things some times and not all punishment necessarily needs to be meeted out by the state or with state approval.

And their punishments were never "creative" either. I could come up with a lot worse things that have no aspect of any physical contact (maybe cold water, loud noises, etc.). We can just call it "enhanced" corporal punishment. Would those be covered by your ban?

My bottom line is I understand that having them both there for me was a sure sight better than not. Are you going to start throwing kids into the system over their parents spanking them? I'm coming close to my 5000 characters so...

You obviously missed the point of half of my post and went off on tangents. By discussing the case regarding the father beating his son with a belt, I was illustrating that an isolated incident was condoned, the blanket offense he committed was not. According to the citations on Wikipedia, had YOU felt the need to click them, an attorney cited that the butt is not a private part, whereas a course in anatomy will tell you something different.

If my boyfriend kisses me, this is not sexual harassment as it does not apprehend my integrity. That is the relationship he and I have. Someone else kissing me or coercing me into a position where my integrity is apprehended is. Your football statement was a joke, right?

"Typically this is younger than 18" So sarcasm is lost on you as well? Why the hell did you demand I define it for you? How on Earth can you say our laws aren't subjective!? "Reasonable and moderate force" isn't specific at all. What is reasonable and moderate to you will not be reasonable and moderate to me, and may be reasonable and moderate to a judge depending on what mood they are in during trial.

You can not click on a single link? Go to my website and review the damages subsection under "education". There is a sources tab. You can communicate with me further from my site. As I can not copy and paste in mass, I directed people there. Clicking seemed too difficult for you.

These studies were performed on infants, toddlers, elementary school aged children, middle and high school youth. If you clicked on a single link, you would know that.

And no, it would not send parents to jail. But there would be deterrents.

Have a wonderful rest of your day, I'm done with this site and this lunatic discussion.

"My time is clearly lost on you. You obviously missed the point of half of my post and went off on tangents."

Go back to your first sentence of your first post:

"For all of the 'correlation doesn't prove causation' comments, hate to break it to you, but from a preponderance of correlation, causation may be established."

Every point I've made has been to call you out on this. Correlation <> Causation. Period. You have not even been able to clearly define the hypothesis -- what one would think as elementary in this discussion. Where is even the "preponderance" if there is wild variety within this own country, as you've alluded to yourself. We're talking a sample size of a handful of countries with hundreds, thousands, or potentially millions of explanatory variables but you assert spanking to be the cause of everything from high crime rates to illiteracy? All based on "science" from studies that you can't cite.

For free, I'm giving you a null hypothesis to test: there is no effective method of corporal punishment. Now, we need to start by defining the basic terms.

What is spanking? It's clearly not just physical contact with the buttocks and it would seem that it would be common sense that any effects would be dramatically different depending on age of the spankee, relation to the spanker, instrument, harshness, location, etc. I mentioned the rap on the knuckles because that is a common form of corporal punishment. But you continue to ignore that and get on some tangent about the butt being a "private" part even though I demonstrate how legally it is not. And I challenge you to find a single college level anatomy professor who will talk about the butt as a "private" part. Private parts are the genitals, aka the sex organs, and no one should ever be struck there - even with a mild blow.

To continue, what is a "child" or "minor"? It would seem common sense that spanking would have a dramatically different impact on children of different ages.

It would be nice if your "deterrents" were defined, too. It's these half-thought policies that lead to poorly written laws, like the one which recently saw a man stalk, shoot, and kill an unarmed teenager yet go free because the teen dared to confront his stalker. Before turning parents into criminals by banning the practice, I'd think anyone would want such policy to be clearly defined as well as thoroughly tested.

Further, how in the world can one go and make blanket claims about the solution to all of society's ills with broad comparisons of very different countries without having a) gone through the basics of defining a null hypothesis b) testing it c) identifying and testing other probable mechanisms for said change?

I have asked again and again for definitions and citations, anything that would point to some valid conclusions - anything that would somehow indicate causation and I've offered several citations and suggestions for other likely causes for said change -- including from this past week's issue of this same paper.

"You can not click on a single link? Go to my website and review the damages subsection under "education". There is a sources tab."

I click on tons of links. However, asking you to cite them would hopefully mean you'd read them and answer some of my questions, like whether impact changes with age, whether the instrument makes a difference, etc. Because, to be honest, I don't care about that. I don't beat my kids and I sure don't hold a grudge against my parents for spanking me. What I do care about is peoples' supposed understanding of statistics lets them infer causation from correlation because it leads to bad policies and a nanny state. I mean the state has no business in my bedroom and it damn well stay out of how I discipline my kids.

"Have a wonderful rest of your day, I'm done with this site and this lunatic discussion."

You too. I sure wouldn't give up on TE. And I really do suggest reading last weeks' feature article. It's very relevant. Anyway, if you would just say correlation <> causation, this discussion would never have happened. I do need to go out and moon someone, though, since I learned it is my Constitutional right.

As just one more question, which is worse: a parent that allows their son to play football or a parent that spanks their kid when he does something wrong? Got any studies to back up one over the other?

Physical punishment just means that the parent ran out of patience, intelligent arguments and - at least temporarily - lost the ability to persuade a child to stop misbehaving. Instead, the parent lowered himself to the level of the child. That said, verbal punishment can be just as severe or perhaps worse than occasional spanking. It is tough being a good parent and unfortunately one has only one chance.

What it teaches children is that when you're out of options, you can get your way with physical/psychological violence and intimidation by authority. These people also can't think of anything they do as possibly wrong; there is no benefit, only harm which carries Pavlovian conditioning, to an abused child to admit wrongdoing. It ingrains itself deep into the psyche.

Most of them vote this way and see social issues through the same lens as adults.

There are many other mistakes parents can make though, that have little to do with abuse. I knew a couple with a daughter who experienced intense and sustained grief over the death of a friend. They interfered substantially with her grieving (nothing abusive mind you), with predictable results: she hid it, in order to comply, setting up a cognitive dissonance. To comply she had to be evasive and devious. You can pretty much guess how that's working out. But you can't say these things to people, just watch helplessly ...

I'm quite sure all the negative comments posted here are from parents who have spanked their children. Nobody likes to be told they're a bad parent. The article makes perfect, obvious common sense. Violence begets violence. To all you spankers, it's not you're fault, you just did, or are doing, what your culture commonly does. You're normal. It doesn't mean you can't change and try and make your culture better. It only takes one thing. An inordinate amount of courage.

The really worrisome part of all this argument (flawed it may be; I think it is all about income effects by an other name - less spanking -... but that has already been dealt with in other comments) is: inasmuch as you "criminalize" all sorts of behaviour (banning spanking by parents, oh Lord!), you get desirable social outcomes (less violent crime)... THAT's what is outrageous about this argument...

The whole Correlation doesn't prove Causation is becoming less of a statistical rule and more of a "I need a get out of jail free card for study/statistic/data I don't like" in regards to the Internet.

As I mentioned in a prior comment, the wild growth of video games may be a factor in decreased violence. Why get in trouble or get arrested for a violent act when I can do it legally for fun?

Or, why even meet people that down the line I might get in a fight with when I can just stay in my man-cave fighting zombies in Fallujah or aliens on Mars? Parents complain about how kids don't go out anymore...

Or, it could be definitional. As more attention is paid to statistics on violent crime, jurisdictions fiddle with and change their definitions of key events - like murder, rape, etc.

The "whole correlation doesn't prove causation" thing is very valid. People just get tired of hearing it because it takes real work to try to prove it.

But the wild growth in video games did not happen disproportionately more in Europe than in US. (On the contrary, in Germany blood and gore are forbidden, or at least much more heavily regulated than elsewhere.)

And while definitional differences may account for some part of the effect, their influence is much diminished when the *same* person (i.e., the study authors) does the counting for all states.

"And while definitional differences may account for some part of the effect, their influence is much diminished when the *same* person (i.e., the study authors) does the counting for all states."

No, it doesn't unless the authors went to the raw crime reports themselves and didn't just aggregate based on law enforcement statistics. That would be going really above and beyond -- and is kinda unbelievable.

"But the wild growth in video games did not happen disproportionately more in Europe than in US."

But the wild growth happened. A comparison of US crime rates in 1992 to current crime rates needs to account for it. You're right, though, comparing the scale of change from German and US is important evidence...but I'd expect the authors to also account for whether the growth of the internet and video games has lead Americans to withdraw more from physical interactions at a rate higher than Germans and whether Americans play more video games and for longer than Germans.

Americans don't seem to actually go out and physically socialize as much as we did 20 years ago. And when we do, it seems those places have actually become more prone to violence (from bars and night clubs to little league games).

“unless the authors went to the raw crime reports themselves and didn't just aggregate based on law enforcement statistics”
I’ve not read the study (I can’t read German), but note that it’s not always necessary to do that *exhaustively*.
There are two main possible definitional differences in reporting between jurisdictions:
1) first, different jurisdictions may *explicitly* define different actions as, say, murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc.
2) for the same definition, two different jurisdictions may interpret and classify the same act differently depending on bias.
But you don’t need to examine all individual crimes to adjust for that. It suffices to examine a statistically significant sample of them. This is quite doable with decent accuracy if you have access to a large pool of students hungry for credits. For the definitional (rather than interpretational) differences you might even get away with just adjusting the numbers based on the definitions.
There are also methods of reducing work by carefully picking what you examine; for instance, you can get extra information about the *boundaries* between crime classes by examining preferentially cases that were appealed and overturned (and excluding those where the reasons were technical), or cases with sentences close to the minimum and maximum for each class of crime.
Again, I don’t know if the authors actually did that, but it wouldn’t be at all unbelievable if they did. After all, that’s what (social) scientists are supposed to do all day.

Correlation is not causation but in some cases to get on with life we can't wait for the science and have to go on common sense.

Not to mention that to get funding for more research, first they have to show correlation (which neither video games nor definitional changes really have here) and, like it or not, gain support for the idea since the purse-strings are politically controlled (unless a private source can be secured, but these tend to have their own political agendas too, corporations looking to downplay dangers of smoking or oil spills or what have you, feminists eager to inflate rape statistics or anti-feminists eager to diminish the same, etc etc)

This is silly. They didn’t find causation, they found correlation, and *hypothesized* that it it could be caused by causation. That is you’re *supposed* to generate hypotheses, which then you can try to verify by testing confounding factors and the like.

Like a smart guy said, correlation does not *imply* causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing “look over there”.

"which then you can try to verify by testing confounding factors and the like."

The Economist should be reporting on the results of those tests, then -- not unproven hypotheses. Any quack could find random correlations in things and come up with stupid reasons for why that might be.

All macro-economics consists of “random quacks” finding random correlations and coming up with possible reasons. You can’t do double-blind placebo-controlled experiments with the world economy without having several world economies to work with.

By your reasoning, 95% of what the Economist publishes should not be published anywhere except in academic journals.

I wonder if there's any skew related to whether the spanker and spankee are related. It used to be a lot more common that if a kid misbehaved, the supervising adult would spank the kid...even if it wasn't their kid.

I'm also curious if the correlation between spanking and violence in later life breaks down if the spankings were more rare - but harsher. Is the 'switch' more effective than frequent spankings at preventing future misbehavior?

There's also a danger in thinking correlation = causation. It may just be that kids are less likely be violent because they're more likely to take it out on orcs or malevolent wizards than on actual people. I just think there are a lot more variables here than just "spanking."

"To Mr Pfeiffer, this is one (of admittedly several and complex) factors, that explain why Americans own more guns, commit more crime and punish more severely than western Europeans."

Well, that might make sense if we saw people exhibiting all three tendencies at once, but I'm not sure I buy that people who commit violent crimes are simultaneously in favor of harsher punishments for the very crimes they're committing. I'm also pretty certain that levels of gun ownership in Scandinavia are higher than those in the UK. I'm willing to hear more, but I'm rather skeptical on the basis of the evidence presented thus far.

Any link to the original article? Any way in which the authors deal with the endogeneity issue of "badder" children being more likely to get spanked? And to what extent do the authors control for social background, wealth, education levels?

Spanking is one form of beating. It is not okay to beat kids for so many reasons but here are two of the main ones:
- Spanking sets a bad example. By spanking, a parent is saying that violence is okay in some situations (it is not).
- Spanking nudges kids toward obsequious *or* rebellious dispositions. Both mind-states are reactionary and I would imagine might lead to depression.

I recommend a book called 'Non-Violent communication' to learn numerous alternatives to spanking.

I don't think the author is saying all religious people are horrible monsters. In fact, he states that in Germany, except for one small religious group, more religiosity inversely correlates with spanking.

Share more about this 12 year old nephew comment - you seem to be in an adversarial relationship. We are not at war with kids. We owe it to them to develop our own skills to teach them to become healthy and independent adults. Spanking is a tactic contrary to this objective.

Excusez-moi but I do not believe the Astrid LIndgren classic illustrating the article played a role in forbidding spanking of children at school and at home in Sweden.
The book does not touch upon spanking at all, it is about a girl able to fend for herself, strong enough to lift a horse and with
plenty of gold money to pay for her living out that grand dream of all children: having no family at all and going to school only if she feels like it.
In fact none of Lindgren´s books deals with spanking.

"Above all, I believe that there should never be any violence." In 1978, Astrid Lindgren received the German Book Trade Peace Prize for her literary contributions. In acceptance, she told the following story.
"When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor's wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn't believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking--the first of his life. And she told him that he would have to go outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, "Mama, I couldn't find a switch, but here's a rock that you can throw at me."
All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child's point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone. And the mother took the boy onto her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because violence begins in the nursery--one can raise children into violence."
I think that too often we fail to feel situations "from the child's point of view," and that failure leads us to teach our children other than what we think we're teaching them.

I condemn physically disciplining children but I have a serious problem with this article; It does not define "spanking", the difference between "beating" and "spanking" or what constitutes as "frequent". Moreover, this article appears to describe a black and white psychological watershed that I don't believe exists between those who have never ever been spanked and those who have been spanked just once or (many times?) more.

I had extremely loving and wonderful parents and I recall being briefly spanked on my rear only a grand total of three times as a child. In retrospect I did certainly deserve them - and it did teach me a couple of boundaries where the reason, love and care my parents always showed me was seriously not working.

I do not consider myself a "beaten" child or my parents to be abusive - but this study seems to arbitrarily group people like me with children who have been regularly abused, or parents like mine amongst those who failed at the craft.

how true.
Difficult matter and one that is important. Yet the common level of discussion is rather silly.
I also doubt that the stated effect in rates of criminality fall because parents do not spank children but as your pointed out we do not even know what author meant by 'spanking' which does not allow a sensible discussion.

I used to think just like you. When my parents gave me a slap, it must have been good for something, because they were caring and loving people. But what actually was it good for? I can't really answer this question to myself. More than anything it made me afraid of them. Just like you, I remember every single of the very few incidents it happened, although I've forgotten much else of my childhood (even an accident that left a quite visible scar on my face). These are not placent memories and I don't wish for my children to have them. Certainly I've not been an abused child, but a beaten one - I'm not so sure.